There was a study done a few years ago on, I believe, ESP and how one group of scientists got one outcome and another group, got a differing one, using the same parameters. How could this be? To make a long story short, I think the answer was in the observation(s) of the controlled groups. They seem to skew in ways of belief by the observers. I have no real idea if that is what happened here, but it is a start, especially when you get 2 different outcomes.
Sometimes, some observers want or lets say have their intent set on an outcome and read the actual data in a way that skews the outcomes in their favor, so they can keep on doing the work they love. Not saying they do this deliberately or are bias. Just that sometimes, like loving someone, we cannot see the forest for the trees, If you know what I mean!?

Science does not always have all the answers and is not the greatest at seeking the be all end all, but it is all we have in regards to certain rules and regulations of the universe.
So don't give up on it, otherwise all you'll have is mysticism and not that it is wrong, it does not always answer everything to your satisfaction either. IMO.

As far as training goes and science, I tend to agree with Dr Ken, that most of it is bullshirt, or the application thereof, since it seems to take away from or does not allow for the human minds interaction.
In short, trying to measure "scientifically", how we would all respond to say a 5x5 protocol, does not take into account, yours or my attitude, determination, focus or any other mental aspect that cannot be put under the microscope or measured.

I like the article, and it alludes to many of the problems in scientific debates.

There are certainly many parameters worth looking at not discussed in your article, too. These are not important to scientists who are professionals and whose livelihoods revolve around being able to read a scientific paper, and these things go without saying, but these are greatly important in the world of health and fitness where many of the experts are NOT scientists.

Many armchair scientists only ever read a paper's abstract and never study the full text. The abstract should only ever be referenced for understanding what the paper is about. The real science is described in the rest of the paper, particularly in the materials and methods (do the scientists obey the scientific method? Was this a randomized, placebo-controlled experiment? What kind of bias is present in the experiment and how is it controlled for? Do the scientists understand the scientific historical context and background of their subject of study enough to be able to properly stratify the experimental subjects and the results?). The result section is also important because that is where the raw data lies, more or less. It's true, even this can get gummed up in today's world of "publish or perish," but as long as the paper wasn't published in a shady Open Access Journal you should be able to trust the data in the results so long as the materials and methods are solid as well. As a scientist myself, I would largely ignore the discussion section for the purposes of forming an opinion on the validity of the data. Once you have a grasp of what happened in the paper and if the data is good or not, then you should read the discussion, and only for the purposes of feeding your curiosity.

There was a study done a few years ago on, I believe, ESP and how one group of scientists got one outcome and another group, got a differing one, using the same parameters. How could this be? To make a long story short, I think the answer was in the observation(s) of the controlled groups. They seem to skew in ways of belief by the observers. I have no real idea if that is what happened here, but it is a start, especially when you get 2 different outcomes.
Sometimes, some observers want or lets say have their intent set on an outcome and read the actual data in a way that skews the outcomes in their favor, so they can keep on doing the work they love. Not saying they do this deliberately or are bias. Just that sometimes, like loving someone, we cannot see the forest for the trees, If you know what I mean!?

Science does not always have all the answers and is not the greatest at seeking the be all end all, but it is all we have in regards to certain rules and regulations of the universe.
So don't give up on it, otherwise all you'll have is mysticism and not that it is wrong, it does not always answer everything to your satisfaction either. IMO.

As far as training goes and science, I tend to agree with Dr Ken, that most of it is bullshirt, or the application thereof, since it seems to take away from or does not allow for the human minds interaction.
In short, trying to measure "scientifically", how we would all respond to say a 5x5 protocol, does not take into account, yours or my attitude, determination, focus or any other mental aspect that cannot be put under the microscope or measured.

Thanks!

i agree about the bias and science do not have answers to everything. In medicine, unless the study is blinded they don't bother reading it. In objective cases, like death, bias is less of a problem. Sample size is major reason why you get different outcomes when everything else is pretty similar.

In meta analysis, there is usually ways to identify bias by looking at the spread of the data or using cohran Q test.

And I don't agree with Dr. Ken nor will anyone in evidence based medicine. The whole idea of randomization is to minimize or eliminate known and unknown variables. So if someone in group is highly motivated , there is equal chance that the other group will have person with similar characteristics. This is the exact reason why observation studies are not very credible since the subjects are not randomized.

I like the article, and it alludes to many of the problems in scientific debates.

There are certainly many parameters worth looking at not discussed in your article, too. These are not important to scientists who are professionals and whose livelihoods revolve around being able to read a scientific paper, and these things go without saying, but these are greatly important in the world of health and fitness where many of the experts are NOT scientists.

Many armchair scientists only ever read a paper's abstract and never study the full text. The abstract should only ever be referenced for understanding what the paper is about. The real science is described in the rest of the paper, particularly in the materials and methods (do the scientists obey the scientific method? Was this a randomized, placebo-controlled experiment? What kind of bias is present in the experiment and how is it controlled for? Do the scientists understand the scientific historical context and background of their subject of study enough to be able to properly stratify the experimental subjects and the results?). The result section is also important because that is where the raw data lies, more or less. It's true, even this can get gummed up in today's world of "publish or perish," but as long as the paper wasn't published in a shady Open Access Journal you should be able to trust the data in the results so long as the materials and methods are solid as well. As a scientist myself, I would largely ignore the discussion section for the purposes of forming an opinion on the validity of the data. Once you have a grasp of what happened in the paper and if the data is good or not, then you should read the discussion, and only for the purposes of feeding your curiosity.

good points. Discussion is usually to 'justify' why their hypothesis wasn't shown to be right or/and why our study is still better though it doesn't make any sense. lol

This is the exact reason why observation studies are not very credible since the subjects are not randomized.

Right, which is why I believe he says that.
Maybe you misunderstood, but I believe Ken means, trying to apply all the science and keeping track of that, instead of training hard (which should be the prime directive) and not measuring force out put and why fast and slow twitch work the way they do, all takes away the focus of actually going into the gym and doing more than you did yesterday.
It is another reason why some guys who pay very little attention to anything more than hard work, do as good or better, than all the tendo units, how fast or slow you are moving etc. etc.

As far as saving lives, as opposed to bigger bis, well you know that is only normal human behavior. Don't take it as a personal attack on your education or beliefs or doctrines. People want to be accepted first and foremost by their peers.
Health usually does not become an issue, until our back is against the wall and the doc tells us we MUST, change our lifestyles or else.

Right, which is why I believe he says that.
Maybe you misunderstood, but I believe Ken means, trying to apply all the science and keeping track of that, instead of training hard (which should be the prime directive) and not measuring force out put and why fast and slow twitch work the way they do, all takes away the focus of actually going into the gym and doing more than you did yesterday.
It is another reason why some guys who pay very little attention to anything more than hard work, do as good or better, than all the tendo units, how fast or slow you are moving etc. etc.

As far as saving lives, as opposed to bigger bis, well you know that is only normal human behavior. Don't take it as a personal attack on your education or beliefs or doctrines. People want to be accepted first and foremost by their peers.
Health usually does not become an issue, until our back is against the wall and the doc tells us we MUST, change our lifestyles or else.

Thanks for your studies and your passion to educate us...!

You can do both: hard work and education. Why make it an either or argument. My personal opinion is most of the things we worry about ( like ideal rep range, exercises and such)don't matter much on the long run - for the most. For a bodybuilder it might matter. And if you read my articles, you will hear that tone. So I kind of agree there. i always think about doing a study on bodybuilders to see which variable explains the results the most. My personal hunch: motivation. The rest like rep range, specific exercises, failure and such won't matter much.

Very true. In fact one of the most popular posts on my site is about power bracelets and shake weight! And most of my readers are concerned about fitness. they don't about care about the science or how evidence based approach works. People want the " show me what to do" and don't tell me the 'why'.

And there is nothing wrong in questioning and criticizing. Skeptical thinking is the hallmark of science. There is something seriously wrong if they are lacking in a discussion

Many armchair scientists only ever read a paper's abstract and never study the full text.

In some cases, though, this may be because the abstract is all that's available. If you don't have university access to databases or a lot of disposable income to front for the article or a subscription, you're out of luck.

In some cases, though, this may be because the abstract is all that's available. If you don't have university access to databases or a lot of disposable income to front for the article or a subscription, you're out of luck.

I understand. But it's inappropriate to draw any conclusions from the abstract. They're as reliable as broscience and at best only a couple of steps above it.

There was an article recently on how some open access journals don't even subject submissions to ANY peer review. While I know most subscription services do at least go through the motions of verifying certain steps were taken to ensure the scientific process was carried out without violating basic principles more often than not there are fallacies and problems in the design of the study that aren't revealed in the abstract, or worse, sometimes the results get completely misconstrued as meaning something they dont or showing something they don't.

My bottom line is that you should only draw conclusions from data itself, not from others' interpretation of that data.